• From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
• To: Michael Kay <mike@s...>
• Date: Sat, 27 Feb 2010 12:45:29 -0500

Michael Kay wrote:
> This seems a silly attitude. Clearly XLink success is not overwhelming, but
> there are users in areas like XBRL, so you can't describe it as being dead.
> And just because the community is small doesn't mean it's not worth doing
> some simple maintenance to keep the spec up to date.

If I was convinced the maintenance had any practical impact, I might 
talk less about zombies and necromancers.  I'm sure there are a couple 
of specs that will upgrade to note XLink 1.1, but I expect the actual 
impact on the software world will be unnoticeable, even in the few 
places that use it.

But hey, sure, it's the kind of exciting project that standards 
organizations are good at.

-- 
Simon St.Laurent
http://simonstl.com/

• References:
  • xlink 1.1
    • From: Dave Pawson <davep@d...>
  • Re: xlink 1.1
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • Re: xlink 1.1
    • From: ht@i... (Henry S. Thompson)
  • Re: xlink 1.1
    • From: "Simon St.Laurent" <simonstl@s...>
  • RE: xlink 1.1
    • From: "Michael Kay" <mike@s...>